Reports of a “Custody Battle” Backfiring? – MJEOL Bullet #94 Update2 There is a renewed round of “custody battle” reports circulating the news between Michael Jackson and Debbie Rowe, the mother of two of Jackson’s children. There were documents filed in court by Jackson and Rowe agreeing to let a retired judge help them settle a private matter concerning…well…who knows what. It’s being called a “family law” issue. In just a few short days, the story has jumped from “guardianship, not custody” reports to a full-scale “custody battle” claiming “more trouble in Neverland”. Cue the dramatic background music. The documents, swiped and posted by thesmokinggun website, reveals a whole lot of absolutely nothing. The only thing in the documents even showing they have anything to do with Jackson and Rowe are their signatures appearing on the pages. Obviously the media are itching for a custody battle between Jackson and Rowe. If the ex-managers, ex-associates, ex-leeches, ex-whoevers are furthering this “custody battle” story to hurt Jackson, it seems to be backfiring. Everything from Rowe’s motives to her right to make any decisions for the children she gave to Jackson is being openly and unashamedly questioned by some of the same people who have been so scathing about Jackson, by people who have supported Jackson and by those who don’t care one way or the other. It is known that Rowe met with two former Jackson associates on the day Jackson’s big business meeting was taking place in Beverly Hills. If there were any plans to brainwash or use Rowe to challenge Jackson for custody, then their faction must be feeling a bit uneasy tonight. And this is all speculation of course because Rowe could release a statement tomorrow calling the media a bunch of lying ratings-whores and saying she is not seeking custody of the children. Let’s break down what’s known: 1. Documents were filed in court with both sides agreeing to allow a judge to help them settle a family law issue. 2. ……*crickets* 3. ……*more crickets*. The point is that not a thing is known for sure beyond that. Has that stopped the media from reporting the alleged “story”? Of course not. What the press has done is to attach their own speculations, unfounded “rumors”, and reports from their “sources” onto these nondescript court papers to make them appear more sinister and/or weighty than they may actually be. What is most interesting, however, is the media’s willingness to question Rowe’s alleged motives for “filing for custody”—which is not alleged in any court documents so far—without having so much as a single piece of corroborating evidence that she is seeking or even wants custody of Jackson’s children. And they are, for all intents and purposes, Jackson’s children. This lack of evidence didn’t stop Celebrity Justice drone Pat Lalama from appearing on Scarborough Country last night (Feb 24) to openly question Rowe’s motives while bashing Jackson in one fail swoop. At one point, Scarborough actually questions if Rowe could be “shaking Michael Jackson down” for money:

SCARBOROUGH: …..Explain to me exactly what‘s going on behind the scenes. Could she possibly be shaking Michael Jackson down for money now, too? LALAMA: Well, it‘s interesting that you should say that. And the bottom line, Joe, is that the devil is in the details. And the details are something we really aren‘t privy to, because we don‘t know what deal she allegedly made with Jackson all those years ago, when she bore his first two children. The rumors, the reports are that she accepted a large sum of money. (see Scarborough Country – Bashing Rowe(CJ)-TRANSCRIPT).

Lalama had some very scathing things to say about Rowe and makes the point of questioning where Rowe was after the Berlin episode when Jackson made a mistake by holding his youngest son over a balcony rail. She also says that after Jackson’s former unproven molestation allegation in 1993, there wasn’t an objection from Rowe. She continues by saying now Rowe wants to step in because of unconfirmed reports about the Nation of Islam influencing her kids. Lalama even goes on to say that she hopes Rowe is not using these children, and a possible custody battle, to shake down Michael Jackson for more money. Lalama says:

“So, if her initial endeavor was for money, then, boy, I‘m scared. I‘m scared about trying to get children back. It‘s not right for us to judge perhaps what was in her mind at that time. Maybe she really wanted to do a favor for Michael Jackson. But if it was all about money, then I feel very sorry that these two children are pawns in this horrid chess game. “

Note, again, that all of this ranting from Lalama is prefaced on the, as of yet, unproven allegation that Rowe is seeking custody of Jackson’s children. Defense attorney John Burris who appeared on the Abrams Report (Feb 16) says:

I don‘t know that I have a view that‘s being that kind to her at all because she got a great deal of money for this particular deal—transaction. And it‘s not to say that given all that people are suggesting, that lawyers and other people that she needs to do something as a mother, she may be very more feeling guilty about that than she is about anything else. She has no evidence that Michael has mistreated these kids. She knows that Michael loved these kids and treats these kids. I think it‘s much more a function of the social pressures that are being placed on her than anything else.

Burris also says that he doesn’t buy the “Nation-of-Islam-is-controlling-Jackson-and-abusing-my-kids” theory often bandied about in the media as a reason why she’s allegedly seeking custody. Burris says, point blank, that Rowe “has no information that the Nation of Islam has any kind of presence at all…that would suggest” that the children she bore for Jackson are being mistreated by them (see Abrams Report – Jackson Letter/Rowe papers ). Thus if the goal is to embarrass Jackson—coming from either Rowe or people using her situation to further their own agendas—by hyping up a possibly non-existent “custody battle”, Rowe’s name is also being dragged through the proverbial mud. -MJEOL

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *